Author Topic: Climate Change  (Read 28565 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline cybercoma

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2956
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #930 on: December 10, 2019, 09:48:52 am »
it is simply not possible to make any claim about the likelihood of major consequences from climate change.
Wow.
Agree Agree x 1 Funny Funny x 1 Winner Winner x 1 View List

Offline cybercoma

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2956
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #931 on: December 10, 2019, 09:51:53 am »
I see the yahoos who are unable to to have reasonable discussion with people that happen to have a different opinion are still around. Flagging posts that make a reasonable point as 'dumb' just because you disagree with them is emblematic of the partisan divides that are fracturing society. It is only slightly less insulting than calling people names because they do not share your opinion on controversial topics.
You didn’t make reasonable points. You made highly misinformed points and keep pushing denier propaganda. Like it even needs to be pointed out again how stupid and unhelpful your stance of radical skepticism is. We can and do know things; you just refuse to acknowledge not only the science but also the evidence in front of your face.

Offline JMT

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3462
  • Location: Waterhen, Manitoba
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #932 on: December 10, 2019, 10:48:23 am »

I see the yahoos who are unable to to have reasonable discussion with people that happen to have a different opinion are still around. Flagging posts that make a reasonable point as 'dumb' just because you disagree with them is emblematic of the partisan divides that are fracturing society. It is only slightly less insulting than calling people names because they do not share your opinion on controversial topics.

This isn't a controversial topic. 
Agree Agree x 2 Winner Winner x 1 View List

Offline ?Impact

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2941
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #933 on: December 10, 2019, 11:11:22 am »
I see the yahoos who are unable to to have reasonable discussion with people that happen to have a different opinion are still around. Flagging posts that make a reasonable point as 'dumb' just because you disagree with them is emblematic of the partisan divides that are fracturing society. It is only slightly less insulting than calling people names because they do not share your opinion on controversial topics.

Stick around Tim, we enjoy your company even if we disagree with you. You are free to flag me as dumb or whatever you wish.
Like Like x 1 Agree Agree x 1 View List

Offline Michael Hardner

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12466
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #934 on: December 10, 2019, 11:45:50 am »
This isn't a controversial topic.

The most recent posts are about differentiating between Risk and Hysteria seem more controversial IMO.

Offline Michael Hardner

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12466
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #935 on: December 10, 2019, 11:46:31 am »
By way of proof - when is the last time JMT marked a climate post of mine 'dumb' ?

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #936 on: December 10, 2019, 11:52:41 am »
Ice extent is decreasing in some places bu increasing in others. So what? That does not mean we know that there is a high likelihood of major consequences.

Yes, you are correct in your observation that sea ice is increasing in some areas. It is specifically in the antarctic ocean. Unfortunately that increase is due to the desalination of surface water caused by increased rainfall in the area due to global warming. Turns out what you thought might be good news is actually bad news.   
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Offline Granny

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #937 on: December 10, 2019, 04:45:09 pm »
The table does not apply to the climate change because it is simply not possible to make any claim about the likelihood of major consequences from climate change. To illustrate the problem look at tobacco: we can quantify the risk of developing cancer from smoking because we have the experience of millions of smokers to use as a basis for calculation which means the result of the calculations is very credible. No such equivalent exists with the alleged consequences of climate change because these consequences have never occurred before. Making a claim about climate change today would be like someone making a claim that smoking causes cancer based on rat testing before anyone ever actually developed cancer. The rat testing would be sufficient to argue that there is a concern but it would NOT be sufficient to make the claim that cancer is a likely outcome of smoking.

Yup. Here's the ostrich with his head buried in the sand back again. 'If I haven't seen it yet, it can't possibly exist.'

Tell me TimG, will you be poor in your old age if you haven't saved for retirement?

Do you ever predict and plan for the future?

So do scientists and economists.
You might want to pay attention.
« Last Edit: December 10, 2019, 04:56:07 pm by Granny »
Like Like x 1 View List

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #938 on: December 10, 2019, 05:01:20 pm »
Yup. Here's the ostrich with his head buried in the sand back again. 'If I haven't seen it yet, it can't possibly exist.'

Tell me TimG, will you be poor in your old age if you haven't saved for retirement?

Do you ever predict and plan for the future?

So do scientists and economists.
You might want to pay attention.

that approach works well over at "hillbillyville" I bet.

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #939 on: December 11, 2019, 07:49:06 am »
You didn’t make reasonable points. You made highly misinformed points and keep pushing denier propaganda.
Of course. Any opinion that does not conform to your ideology MUST be uninformed. What condescending BS. Double ironic given your dismissal of studies of the Fraser Institute on another thread. i.e. you accept any kind of statistical garbage as long as it says what you want to believe. As soon as someone does an analysis that you don't agree with you start nit picking about "methodologies". Well, climate scientists have been caught blantently abusing statistical methods and none of their peers cared. That says nothing good about the field.

In any case, it should be obvious to anyone that is intellectual honest that the evaluation of statistical methods is highly subjective which is why we have dualling studies that say opposite things from think tanks with different ideological outlooks. This injects a lot of uncertainty into any statistical analysis that cannot be confirmed with reproducible experiments.  With climate change, almost none of the claims can be backed up with experiments so people claiming certainty about future outcomes are peddling nonsense. We simply do not know what will occur or whether it will occur fast enough to be a concern.

« Last Edit: December 11, 2019, 08:24:09 am by TimG »
Old Old x 1 Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #940 on: December 11, 2019, 07:53:54 am »
The most recent posts are about differentiating between Risk and Hysteria seem more controversial IMO.
This is the dishonest "bait and switch" tactic used by alarmists. They ignore the point your are making and declare that since something else is true anything else they want to believe is also true and your are a "denier" for disagreeing.

Offline Michael Hardner

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12466
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #941 on: December 11, 2019, 08:14:23 am »
This is the dishonest "bait and switch" tactic used by alarmists. They ignore the point your are making and declare that since something else is true anything else they want to believe is also true and your are a "denier" for disagreeing.

I never feel so alone as when I have to state suspicious facts...  :(

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #942 on: December 11, 2019, 12:27:58 pm »
Of course. Any opinion that does not conform to your ideology MUST be uninformed. What condescending BS. Double ironic given your dismissal of studies of the Fraser Institute on another thread. i.e. you accept any kind of statistical garbage as long as it says what you want to believe. As soon as someone does an analysis that you don't agree with you start nit picking about "methodologies". Well, climate scientists have been caught blantently abusing statistical methods and none of their peers cared. That says nothing good about the field.

In any case, it should be obvious to anyone that is intellectual honest that the evaluation of statistical methods is highly subjective which is why we have dualling studies that say opposite things from think tanks with different ideological outlooks. This injects a lot of uncertainty into any statistical analysis that cannot be confirmed with reproducible experiments.  With climate change, almost none of the claims can be backed up with experiments so people claiming certainty about future outcomes are peddling nonsense. We simply do not know what will occur or whether it will occur fast enough to be a concern.

Fraser Institute? If you get your scientific info. from them I expect you may also get your news from Fox.Faux
Like Like x 3 View List

Offline Queefer Sutherland

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10186
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #943 on: December 11, 2019, 02:14:35 pm »
The table does not apply to the climate change because it is simply not possible to make any claim about the likelihood of major consequences from climate change. To illustrate the problem look at tobacco: we can quantify the risk of developing cancer from smoking because we have the experience of millions of smokers to use as a basis for calculation which means the result of the calculations is very credible. No such equivalent exists with the alleged consequences of climate change because these consequences have never occurred before. Making a claim about climate change today would be like someone making a claim that smoking causes cancer based on rat testing before anyone ever actually developed cancer. The rat testing would be sufficient to argue that there is a concern but it would NOT be sufficient to make the claim that cancer is a likely outcome of smoking.

I see your point Tim about rats and tobacco cancer.  My opinion on CC is that we can't precisely predict the future of how warming will occur or what it will affect. We're dealing with literally millions of variables, and many that we don't even know exist.  That many variables is impossible to put into any model to predict accurately what will occur.  But what science can do is provide ranges of probability of certain things occurring based on what we know and the best data we have.  This is what the IPCC reports have done.  It's not perfect or precise, and no data model is perfect or meant to be perfect, including models used to predict weather 7 days from now or even 3 days from now.  Weather is different than climate yes, but both use data models to try and predict future events based on probability, not certainty.

What we also know virtually for certain is that change will come and is starting to occur already, to organisms and ecosystems and human habitats.  Fast-occuring, significant, and longterm change is not good for most species, change in their environment and ecosystems they are unable to adapt to is what makes species die or go extinct, this is the nature of nature.

Not significantly reducing GHG will likely cause many organisms and species to die or go extinct, and will be extremely expensive for humans to adapt, and will cause some deaths especially in the developing world where they don't have the money or means to adapt as well. The flooding we've seen in the spring in last year in North America is just one small example of what could happen.  On the other hand, significantly reducing GHG will also be very expensive to adapt, and may also cause deaths especially in the 3rd world since reducing our standard of living may also reduce health outcomes or make things like food and medicine more expensive.  People who think moving swiftly to green tech will be cheap and as inexpensive and productive as fossil fuels (at least in foreseeable future) are fooling themselves.

Personally i'd be cool with giving up a bit of my standard of living and wealth to save a gazillion species on this planet.  People 70 years ago had smaller houses and less gadgets but lived just fine.  it's not ethical to decimate untold species and ecosystems in order to maximize the standard of living of a handful of human generations of the industrial age.  The current hyper-modern society is effed up anyways, i'd rather live on a lake fishing and killing game and read a good book as it is LOL.

What we need is a REALISTIC cost/benefit analysis of different forms of adapting vs not adapting. Or adapting by reducing GHG vs adapting to climate change. This convo is hard because of the ideologies and biases of people that get involved.  We need educated people without a dog in the fight.
« Last Edit: December 11, 2019, 02:17:30 pm by Poonlight Graham »
"Nipples is one of the great minds of our time!" - Bubbermiley
Agree Agree x 1 Winner Winner x 1 Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline Queefer Sutherland

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10186
Re: Climate Change
« Reply #944 on: December 11, 2019, 02:38:05 pm »
This isn't a controversial topic.

If it isn't then people can argue that it isn't.  We don't need to react like children.  There's a lot of mean-spiritedness on this forum to those certain people disagree with.  A lot of very angry, childish responses.  Why can't we all discuss issues like adults?  The "dumb"-tagging and insults is tiring.  We can disagree without getting angry.

People, including me, don't like posting here because there's a bunch of people who react like jerks to opinions they don't like.  If people want their echo-chamber they're doing a great job.  This place is as childish as Question Period.
"Nipples is one of the great minds of our time!" - Bubbermiley
Like Like x 1 Agree Agree x 2 Winner Winner x 1 Dumb Dumb x 3 View List